CONGRESSIONAL ROLL CALL: Week ending July 20

WASHINGTON -- Here's how area members of Congress voted on major issues in the week ending July 20.

HOUSE

2013 MILITARY BUDGET: Voting 326 for and 90 against, the House on July 19 sent the Senate a nearly $606 billion military appropriations bill for fiscal 2013, including $87.7 billion for war in Afghanistan and other theaters and $35.1 billion for military healthcare. The bill (HR 5856) funds a 1.7 percent military pay raise; authorizes 1.4 million active-duty forces and 843,400 National Guard and Reserve troops, prohibits the torture of detainees, bars permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and prohibits any American control of Iraqi oil. Now awaiting Senate action, the bill raises military spending even though the Pentagon budget must be cut by $55 billion next year under terms of the 2011 Budget Control Act.

Advertisement

The bill's research and development budget provides funds for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's P8-A Poseidon bomber and numerous other new weapons. Its procurement budget includes $15.2 billion for acquiring eight Navy ships, including three DDG-51 destroyers and two SSN-774 attack submarines; $5.2 billion for purchasing 29 F-35 aircraft; $2.5 billion for acquiring more than 100 helicopters, including 69 UH-60 Blackhawks; $2 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment and $677 million for modernizing three Navy cruisers scheduled for decommissioning.

Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said the bill "maintains the (U.S.) industrial base by making sure we do not end the domestic-production capability for tanks for the first time since World War II....Shutting the (tank) lines would have cost the American taxpayers more money than producing tanks over the same time and would dismantle the critical, fragile supplier network."

Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said: "It is crucial to our economy and to the future of this country to stop pouring billions into a counterproductive military presence in Afghanistan....The American people have made it clear that the war should end, that it should not go on for another year or 2 years and, surely, not for another decade or more."

A yes vote was to pass the defense budget.

John Larson, D-1: Yes

Joseph Courtney, D-2: Yes

Rosa DeLauro, D-3: Yes

Jim Himes, D-4: Yes

Chris Murphy, D-5: No

DEFENSE-SPENDING FREEZE: The House on July 19 voted, 247 for and 167 against, to freeze the core military budget for fiscal 2013 (HR 5856, above) at the 2012 level of $518 billion. This represented a cut of $1.073 billion in 2013 spending levels approved by the Armed Services Committee. Whether seen as a freeze or cut, the amendment to HR 5856 (above) protects spending for military healthcare and pay and does not reduce funding for war in Afghanistan and other theaters. The amendment was co-sponsored by Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina conservative, and Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal, and drew support from 89 Republicans and 158 Democrats.

Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., said: "This is not a 'cut' amendment. This is an amendment to freeze spending for one year. While the amendment gives control to the generals over the spending, it still protects military pay, the Defense Health Program and the war budget."

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., disputed the cut at a time when "Syria is engulfed in a civil war. North Korea is unpredictable. Russia wants to reclaim its former glory. China is on the fast track to a stronger military. Iran is working night and day to acquire nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups continue to plot and plan."

A yes vote was to trim the 2013 defense budget by $1 billion.

Larson: Yes

Courtney: Yes

DeLauro: Yes

Himes,: Yes

Murphy, D-5: Yes

'STAR WARS' BUDGET: Voting 150 for and 268 against, the House on July 18 refused to cut spending for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program by $75 million to the $900 million level requested by the Pentagon. Dubbed "Star Wars" when begun by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the program consists of nuclear missiles based in Alaska and California that would be launched in hopes of intercepting incoming enemy warheads. Because the program has never been tested in fully simulated war conditions, how it would perform during an actual attack is a matter of conjecture among defense experts. The underlying bill (HR 5856, above) contains more than $8.6 billion for all U.S. missile-defense programs next year.

Edward Markey, D-Mass., said: "St. Augustine's prayeris applicable here, where he said, 'O Lord, make me chaste, but not just yet.' The Republicans are saying, 'O Lord, let us reduce the deficit, but not just yet.' When it comes to defense spending, we want to give the Pentagon even more than they are asking for. Let's get all of our sinning done before next January" when mandatory defense cuts are to take effect.

Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said the $75 million is needed to upgrade missile silos at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

"So rather than close down the shop and hope that the bad guys give us a pass until we're ready to defend ourselves, we're having to move these missiles" during the renovations, he said.

A yes vote was to cut missile-defense spending by $75 million.

Larson: No

Courtney: Yes

DeLauro: Yes

Himes: Yes

Murphy: Yes

MILITARY BANDS BUDGET; Voting 166 for and 250 against, the House on July 18 refused to reduce spending for the approximately 140 U.S. military bands from $388 million to $200 million next year and allocate the savings to deficit reduction. The amendment was offered to HR 5856 (above).

Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said that in the past four years, the Pentagon "spent a stunning $1.55 billion on military bands, musical performances and concert tours around the world. Is this Congress going to really kick more kids off the school lunch program or make deeper cuts to our first responders in order to justify paying for more military music?"

Bill Young, R-Fla., said: "Many communities in our country are constantly inviting military bands to come play patriotic programs.This is a positive country. This is a patriotic country. We ought to allow our military to show off their talents not only on the battlefield."

A yes vote was to nearly halve the 2013 budget for military bands.

Larson: No

Courtney:Yes

DeLauro: Yes

Himes: Yes

Murphy: Yes

SENATE

OFFSHORING AND REPATRIATING U.S. JOBS: Voting 56 for and 42 against, the Senate on July 19 failed to reach 60 votes needed to end Republican blockage of a Democratic bid to use tax incentives to bring overseas jobs home or not send them abroad in the first place. Under the bill (S 3364), businesses would receive a 20 percent tax credit for expenses associated with returning overseas jobs and operations to the U.S.

This would be in addition to normal deductions for business expenses. The bill also would deny companies tax deductions for the cost of outsourcing any part of their business to another country.

Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said: "This is very straightforward. We have a chance to simply say the Tax Codeis not going to reward or pay for the costs of American jobs being shipped overseas."

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said: "As sound bites go, the president's re-election campaign and (Senate Democrats) have apparently decided they can make some political hay with this proposal, but as substantive tax policy goes, this proposal is a joke."

A yes vote was to advance the bill.

Richard Blumenthal, D: Yes

Joseph Lieberman, I: Yes

FILIBUSTER OF DISCLOSE ACT: Voting 51 for and 44 against, the Senate on July 16 failed to reach 60 votes for ending a Republican filibuster against the Disclose Act, which is a Democratic bill (S 3369) requiring the prompt public identification of wealthy interests that anonymously spend tens of thousands or millions of dollars to influence U.S. elections.

Starting in 2013, the bill would require disclosure within 24 hours of the names of individuals, corporations, unions, non-profits and all other entities contributing $10,000 or more during an election cycle to electoral activity such as the funding of attack ads.

Under present law, these contributors can remain behind privacy shields so long as the messages they finance stop short of specifically advocating the election or defeat of individual candidates.

Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said the bill "will shine some much needed light into the flood of secret money that is now polluting our elections."

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: "Democrats can call this bill whatever they want, but they cannot conceal its true intent, which is todiscourage their critics from exercising their First Amendment right to speak their mind."